SHRI CHAMBA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

A                            SHRI CHAMBA SINGH
                                          v.
                         STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 9, 1997

B              [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.]

         Punjab Police Rules, 1934/Pwzjab Civil Se1vices (Premature Retire-
  ment) Rules, 1975-16.1(1), 16(5)12(3), 3(i)(a)-Premature retirement-Ser-
  vice qualifying for pension-Fo1feiture of three years' service for
C increment-Held : The employee's nght to receive increments alone was af-
  fected-Hence no bearing on qualifying se1vice Jor compulso1y/premature
  retirement.

          Sl11i Bhagat Ram v. Inspector General of Police Himachal Pradesh &
    Ors., (1979) 3 SLR 256, overruled.
D
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1799-
    1800 of 1990.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.89 of the Punjab &
E Haryana High Court in C.Misc.P. No. 4626 of 1989 in R.A. No. 42 of 1989.
          A.P. Mohanty and .litendra Singh for the Appellant.

          R.S. Sodhi, Kuldeep Singh and Anil Kr. Sharma for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
         The appellant joined the Punjab Police Department as a Constable
  on March 30, 1961. In 1961 he was promoted as Head Constable. He was
  thereafter promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector. He was served with an
  order dated September 2, 1987 of premature retirement from service in
G public interest. The order states that wherea5 the appellant has completed
  more than 25 years of service on 1.4.86 and whereas on consideration of
  his case, the concerned authority is of the opinion that it is in public interest
  to retire the appellant from service, therefore, in pursuance of Rule 3(i)(a)
  of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 he is
H being retired on payment of three months' salary on 2.9.1987. It seems that
                                        788
                           CHAMilASINGH v. STATE                           789

    during his service, the appellant had been subjected to the punishment of     A
    forfeiture of three years' service for increment. This forfeiture was later


-   reduced to two years of service for the purpose of increment. The appellant
    contends that if the forfeited service of two years is excluded from his
    service, he cannot be said to have completed 25 years' qualifying service
    on 2.9.1987 and hence the order of compulsory retirement must be set          B
    aside.

          Under the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules,
    1975, the expression "qualifying service" has been defined in Rule 2(3)
    of the said Rules to mean "Service qualifying for pension". We have
    therefore, to consider the effect of forfeiture of service for the purpose    C
    of increment under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and it> impact on the
    relevant provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement)
    Rule, 1975. The punishment which was imposed in this case on the
    appellant was under the Punjab Police Rules of 1934. Rule 16.1(1) of
    the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 states that no police officer shall be          D
    departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in these Rules.
    Rule 16.5 provides as follows :

            "(1) The increment of a police officer on a time-scale may be
            withheld as a Punishment. The order must state definitely the         E
            period for which the increment is withheld, and whether the
            postponement shall have the effect of postponing future incre-
            ments. The detailed orders regarding the grant and stoppage of
            increments are contained in rule 13.2.

            (2) Approved service for increment may be forfeited, either tem-      F
            porarily or permanently, and such forfeiture may entail either the
            deferment of an increment or increments or a reduction in pay.
            The order must state whether the forfeiture of approved service is
            to be permanent; or, if not, the period for which it has been
            forfeited.                                                            G

            (3) Reinstatement on the expiry of a period fixed under sub-rule
            (1) or (2) above, shall be conditional upon good conduct in the
            interval, but, if it is desired under this rule not to reinstate an
            officer, a separate order shall be recorded, after the officer con-   H
    790                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A           cerned has been given opportunity to show cause why his reinstate-
            ment should not be deferred, and the period for which such order
            shall have effect, shall be stated. Rules regarding the method of
            recording punishments under this rule in seniority rolls are con-
                                                                                   ..
            tained in Chapter X."
B
    The effect, therefore, of the punishment of forfeiture of two years for
    the purpose of increments is that there is deferment of increment or
    increments over the forfeited period or there is reduction in pay. It does
    not have any impact on the length of service qualifying for pension
    which is the qualifying service to be taken into account for the purpose
C   of compulsory retirement. It is contended by the appellant that since
    Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 16.5 provides that on the expiry of the period fixed
    under Sub-Rule (1) or (2) of Rule 16.5, reinstatement is subject to good
    conduct and it is open to the department to pass a separate order not
    to reinstate an officer, there is a break in the service of the officer when
D   an order is passed under Sub-Rule (1) or (2). However, reinstatement
    in the context of Rule 16.5 can refer only to the resumption of service
    for the purpose of grant of increments. Forfeiture of service for the
    grant of increments does not result in termination of employment. Thus,
    Sub-Rule (1) provides for withholding of increments of a police officer
E   on a time-scale as a punishment. There is no reference in this sub-rule
    to forfeiture of service. Yet Sub-Rule (3) applies to an order under
    Sub-Rule (i) as much as to an order under Sub-Rule (2). Under Sub-
    Rule (2) the forfeiture is expressly of approved service for the purpose
    of increments. Such forfeiture may be temporary or permanent. This
    Rule has no bearing on qualifying service for compulsory/premature
F
    retirement.

        The appellant continued in service throughout this period. His right
  to receive increments alone was affected. If the period of "forfeited" service
  under Rule 16.5(2) is to be deducted from qualifying service for compul-
G sory retirement, it would have the paradoxical result of granting longer
  service to such an employee for compulsory retirement. He would have to
  be allowed to work for additional years to make up the 'forfeited' years,
  before he can be compulsorily retired. This is not the intention of Rule
  16.5. The appellant placed reliance upon a decision of the Himachal
H Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Bhagat Ram v. Inspector General
                       CHAMBASINGH v. STATE                             791

of Police, Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (1979) 3 SLR 256. The judgment has         A
proceeded on the assumption that forfeiture of service for the purpose of
increment is equivalent to a reduction in the period of qualifying service.
For reasons which we have already set out, this is not a correct interpreta-
tion of the punishment of forfeiture of service for the purpose of incre-
ments.
                                                                               B
     The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no
order as to costs.

G.N.                                                     Appeal dismissed.